Why Is NbS A False Solution? (Critiques)
Table of Contents
Time: 30 min to 1 hour read (excluding the activities)
Simply put, NbS are a false solution because they deepen relations of exploitation and do not address the root causes of climate change. (By root causes we mean the 500+ years old system of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and extractivism). Beyond that, NbS brings on a whole host of other problems.
Can you think of what some of them might be? Some guiding questions in thinking about NbS are:
- Who are these solutions for? Who is pushing for them? Why?
- What problems are they actually solving?
- Who is profiting?
- Who is at the losing end?
- What other types of thinking or solutions are pushed to the side when NbS are proposed as a climate solution?
Take a minute to free write, create a bullet list, draw, think out loud or silently as you answer the above questions.
(After completing the activity, participants can see other participants’ answers if they consent to their answers being shared with or without names, and they can post their own answers for future participants. This may be done on a digital white board where all participants’ written or drawn answers are posted.)
Here are some more specific questions to guide you in thinking about how NbS are false solutions:
| How might NbS reject systemic change? | NbS is a cop-out from meaningful systemic change because it does not address the root causes of climate change. Gas, coal, and oil extraction are allowed to continue causing harm. In other words, the polluters are allowed to keep on polluting but evade accountability for their continued role in fueling the climate crisis. NbS is nothing more than a greenwashed band-aid fix. Not only does NbS fail to address the root causes of climate change, it undermines real action to stop fossil fuels by creating a false sense of safety and taking attention away from more effective climate action. |
| How might NbS put profit over people and the planet? What does it mean for how we view nature? | At the most basic level, NbS allows the extractive industry to continue its actions, effectively putting their need for profit over human rights and the rights of nature. The price of this continued extraction is high and it is this very mentality that has led us to the climate crisis in the first place. More specifically, NbS takes Indigenous and peasant knowledge and privatizes and commodifies them for corporate gain. While proponents of NbS talk of “leveraging the power of nature”, they actually ignore and attempt to control the power of non-human species by commodifying them to reap their own power and profits. Putting a price on the carbon found within trees, animals, soil, water etc. distorts our relationship with them by turning them into commodities to buy and sell on a market, instead of acknowledging that nature is priceless. This is particularly dangerous because it puts nature under corporate control. |
| What are the implications of NbS on the lands and rights of Indigenous Peoples, peasants, and/or those in the Global South? | For NbS to be implemented, they require huge amounts of land and/or water. However, the land and/or water on which NbS projects are created are not neutral or empty. They are already inhabited and stewarded, often by Indigenous Peoples, peasants, those in the Global South, small-scale farmers, and other frontline communities. In the pursuit of creating NbS projects, conservation NGOs, development and financial institutions, government, and the corporate sector all repeat old colonial dynamics by forcing Indigenous peoples and local communities off their lands, which often fail to comply with the standards of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and bring egregious human rights violations. |
| How might NbS co-opt Traditional Indigenous Knowledges (TIK)? | Nature-based solutions directly co-opt ecological practices based on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge (TIK), turning them into financialized and privatized instruments. These instruments provide a way through which TIK can fall under governmental, corporate and/or large NGOs control instead of within Indigenous communities. Many NbS projects include practices or elements of what Indigenous Peoples have been fighting against for years such as REDD+, industrial tree plantations, climate-smart agriculture, enclosure as “protected areas” and other biodiversity offsets. The end result is continued global inequality. Moreover, as TIK is essential in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and their lands, the cooptation of TIK and the accompanying landgrabbing are effectively Indigenous genocide. NbS projects cannot replace what Indigenous people have been fighting for years. Indigenous knowledge systems are always premised on the uniqueness and personhood of all members of the community, whether other than human or human. Within Indigenous cosmovisions, nonhuman persons such as animals, plants, rivers, forests are not equivalent to, substitutable or replaceable, let alone bought or sold for another such forest, river, etc. (Figueroa Helland 2022) Each has their personhood and unique spirit, just like each human does, and one cannot compensate for the killing of one person here by protecting another person there. The false equivalency of compensatory logic is extremely harmful. |
| How might NbS continue colonialism? What about carbon colonialism? | Most NbS projects are found in the Global South yet it is the Global North that is primarily responsible for climate change. Effectively, the Global North has outsourced its climate commitments. This is called carbon colonialism, as it perpetuates colonial inequality through carbon offsetting. |
| Is NbS effective on a scientific level? | NbS does not work at the most fundamental scientific level. NbS ignores the difference between fossil carbon and biological carbon (sometimes called modern, terrestrial, or biogenic carbon). Unfortunately, not all carbon is created equal. Whereas fossil carbon takes millions of years to be stored underground in rocks, minerals and other sediments, biological carbon cycles through the atmosphere, soil, water, and living organisms in the short-term. Some reports, like Chasing Carbon Unicorns, have demonstrated it is important to understand where carbon comes from. NbS attempts to sequester biological carbon as a replacement for the millions-of-years-old fossil carbon, but it simply does not work that way. The only way to replace fossil carbon is with time; there is no technological silver bullet. Even if this model of carbon sequestration were somehow possible, there is simply not enough land/water on the planet for all of the offsetting projects, such as NbS, proposed by governments and the private sector. |
| How might NbS bring a one-size-fits-all approach to climate solutions? | Real change will require the input and development of solutions from those at the local level. There are as many ways to create healthy and vibrant ecosystems as there are ecosystems in collapse. There is no one size fits all approach or silver bullet to solving climate change. Each ecosystem and social context is unique and real climate solutions will take these unique factors into consideration to produce unique solutions. It is overly simplistic to think that a tonne of carbon in one place will have identical impacts to one tonne of carbon in a different place. |
| How might NbS distort our understanding of Nature? | NbS projects, and Western conservation projects more broadly, operate on the idea that nature is external to humans, passive, inert, and that humans are therefore justified in the complete control and ownership over land. The idea of “untouched nature” or “bare land” is a Western colonial idea which assumes that the only way for ecosystems to be healthy is in the absence of human ‘interference’. This romanticized idea of “untouched nature” ignores the thousands of years during which Indigenous Peoples successfully stewarded land and is now used to force people, including Indigenous Peoples, off of their ancestral territories. This approach to nature of dominion, ownership, and control is arrogant and lacks respect for the complexity of nature. NbS projects also distort our relationship to nature by reducing it to a machine-like or managerial relationship revolving around the inputs/outputs of carbon. It pushes an oversimplification of extremely complex ecological systems and falsely elevates carbon as the most important element of climate change. This is often called ‘carbon reductionism.’ |
| What you might hear about NbS/Common misconceptions about NbS | How to Respond |
| NbS is a great solution because it uses nature to solve climate change. | The ‘nature’ in ‘nature-based solutions’ is a co-opted version of Indigenous and peasant knowledges, which have been distorted to fit into the profit-generating frame of carbon offsets. There is nothing natural about that. The word ‘nature’ is also misleading–NbS allows projects like monoculture tree plantations, intensive agriculture, and kicking Indigenous People off lands they have inhabited for thousands of years. Those things don’t occur in ‘nature’. Also–fossil fuels are part of nature. Does that make them any less harmful? |
| Even if NbS didn’t sequester carbon, it is still a good idea because it preserves biodiversity. | 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is stewarded by Indigenous Peoples. They have unique and deeply rooted expertise through which biodiversity–including humanity–flourishes. The conservation model used in NbS systematically pushes Indigenous People off biodiversity-rich territories, which is completely antithetical to the goal of biodiversity conservation. |
| We need NbS to reach Net Zero! Otherwise we won’t meet our climate targets! | Net Zero is not Real Zero. Net Zero allows for fossil fuel extraction to continue and does not stop emissions at the source! It would be like drinking 10 cans of soda and then eating 10 pieces of fruit–yes the fruit is healthy but it doesn’t undo the negative health impacts of the soda. A damage here and now cannot be deferred to a future compensatory scheme. This overlooks tipping points, cascade effects and irreversible feedback loops in Earth system dynamics. Mother Earth does not do linear change, as both Indigenous storytelling has always stated and the Western geological record now also acknowledges. If we want to meet our climate targets, it is necessary to actually have zero emissions by stopping fossil fuel extraction. |
| It’s just simple science–if you emit one tonne of CO2 and then sequester one tonne of CO2 it’s as if nothing happened. | Unfortunately the science is not that simple. Fossil carbon takes millions of years to be sequestered into rocks and sediments whereas the carbon sequestered in NbS projects will only be sequestered for a few centuries in the very best case scenario. Also, each ecosystem is unique. The impact of a tonne of CO2 in one ecosystem is not identical as in another ecosystem. Finally, climate change is about so much more than CO2. There is biodiversity, pollution, ocean acidification, and so many aspects of climate change that it is reductive to rely on CO2 offsets as the only or main way to address climate change. |
| NbS and carbon offsets are a great way for us to address climate change without sacrificing the economy. | Economic expansion and consumerism are causes of the climate crisis, so no real solution to climate can cater to the idea that economic expansion is infinite. This especially applies to economic growth, accumulation, and extractivism in the fossil fuel industry, global transport and logistics, and consumer goods that we don’t need. People and the planet should always come before profit! |
| Capitalism is here to stay. We may as well make economic growth good for the planet. | Capitalism is not inevitable. For almost all of human history there were other systems of economy that did not assume endless expansion with an equally endless extraction propping it up. Human history shows time and time again that we are wrong about things we once took for granted like the divine right of kings or the Earth being flat. Right now, many people may take capitalism for granted. But there is no guarantee that it will persist indefinitely. In fact, it is already in decline and the climate crisis is proof of that. Equally prominent systems have come to an end and this one will too. If we can foster a transition to a new system, centering the priorities and worldviews of frontline communities, we can help this one come to an end as peacefully and democratically as possible. |
| Governance is the key to climate solutions. We can make (false) solutions work as long as we have the right governance. | The harms and problems with NbS cannot be solved with “good” governance. Also, global climate politics and policy so far have failed to deliver what they have promised, for example, in the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement. They have failed, for instance, to deliver $100 billion of climate finance due in 2020 to the Global South. Why should we trust governments around the world when they cannot even respect international treaties? |
False Solutions Case Studies
The following section is a placeholder. It will be developed through consultations with folks impacted by NbS projects to add more case studies and their suggestions on the best way to present those case studies.
Layout of this Section: We envision these case studies to live on an interactive map similar to EJ Atlas, where participants can click on specific cases to find more information and links for them to do their own research on cases of interest.
Indigenous People In India affected by NbS
Survival International, a human rights group, has shown how the indigenous forest-based Baiga tribe in India is suffering after reforestation projects affected the region. The biodiversity offsetting project has in fact disproportionately affected the Baiga community. In India, usually when forests are destroyed for projects like mining, the companies responsible are required to give money to the CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) fund,which is used for compensating the loss of forest land and ecosystem services. But these projects often lead to biodiverse forests being replaced with monoculture plantations, often on the land of Adivasi people, whose existence the Indian government has denied for decades.(Also, some 90 percent of all mining operations are located in the forests and predominantly Adivasi regions of India) Compensatory afforestation programs are negatively impacting Adivasi people often without their informed consent as required by the Forest Rights Act. The Adivasis have been fighting for the protection of their collective right to self- determination, autonomy and identity, and for reclaiming their rights over land, territories and natural resources for centuries. “Adivasis have by and large been living in or around the forests with a rhythm akin to nature and thus their life cycle moves round nature.” The Adivasis co-exist and have a symbiotic relationship with nature and care for its well-being. “The concept of ‘exploitation’ has no place in adivasi philosophy; therefore, they do not exploit the natural resources but use it to meet their daily needs. Due to this, adivasi philosophy also addresses the ecological crises the world is facing.” (DungDung 2017)
The Pathalgari Movement, is a powerful mass movement fighting for these rights, and was unfortunately criminalized, declaring it as unconstitutional, anti-state and anti-national, and attacking it with the use of police and paramilitary forces.
We know Indigenous people protect 80% of Earth’s biodiversity and yet, they are often stripped of the lands they protect. In India, conservation efforts are affecting tribal communities. Across India, tribal peoples are being forcibly evicted from tiger reserves. Big conservation organizations such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the Wildlife Conservation Society provide support to India’s Forest Department, which carries out the evictions. Both WWF and WCS claim that relocations are “voluntary.”
There are many cases of Indigenous communities around the world being stripped of their land due to “green” projects. You can learn more about it and other similar case studies on the EJAtlas, an environmental justice atlas that documents and catalogs social conflict around environmental issues. You can add the filter “Indigenous groups or traditional communities” or search for a specific tribe such as Baiga to learn more about Indigenous communities fighting for climate change.
Carbon offset scheme on Indigenous land in northern Kenya
Imagine there is a pastoralist Indigenous community that has been tending to their land in northern Kenya through knowledge systems passed down from community elders for generations. Imagine, one day, a conservation organization run by a white family decides it knows better. This is exactly what happened in 2013 to the Indigenous communities of Samburu, Maasai, Borana and Rendille people of northern Kenya with the conservation group Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) which started a project, the “Northern Kenya Grassland Carbon Project” to sell carbon offsets which calls it the “the world’s largest soil carbon removal project to date and the first project generating carbon credits reliant on modified livestock grazing practices.” (Eco Watch 2023) The project is based on the idea that traditional pastoralist Indigenous grazing techniques, for example, gada and mpaka exercised respectively by the Borana and Samburu communities are not effective and should be replaced with more centralized methods similar to commercial ranching, which allegedly would allow for more vegetation to grow. “Grazing patterns are traditionally dictated by elders according to long-standing sets of rules, allowances and sanctions.” (Survival International 2023) The project covers two million hectares of land home to more than 100,000 people. The project was registered by Verra — the world’s top carbon credit certifier — as Project #1468 and has generated at least 6.7 million credits between 2013 and Feb. 2023, 4.5 million of which have been purchased as offsets, including 180,000 by Netflix and 90,000 by Meta. (Eco Watch 2023) The project has been described by the European Commission as a model on which is planning to base a forthcoming large funding program for conservation projects in Africa called ‘NaturAfrica.’(Survival International 2023)
A new report by Survival International “Blood Carbon: How a Carbon Offset Scheme Makes Millions From Indigenous Land in Northern Kenya”,which is supported by Indigenous Kenyan communitie, raises questions about the credibility of the project and about the impact on the rights and safety of the Indigenous pastoralist peoples involved. For example, the aim of the project is to increase vegetation, but NRT’s own maps for 2012 to 2020 show vegetation declining in 48.5 percent of the project area. Also, to date, there is not really evidence that NRT has properly informed communities about the project, nor received their free prior and informed consent. According to the report:
“The basic premise of the project, that it can enforce ‘planned rotational grazing’ within specified geographical areas runs fundamentally against the traditional indigenous pastoralism of the area, is conceptually seriously misguided, potentially dangerous and probably doomed to fail. It is based on a long colonial prejudice that sees pastoralists as incapable of managing their own environment and constantly destroying it by overgrazing. We believe that the project’s claim to be permanently storing quantifiable amounts of additional carbon in the soils of northern Kenya is highly implausible” Survival International 2023
“NRT is doing the wrong thing that I find unjust to our people”
A leader of the Borana Indigenous people from Kenya, Abdullahi Hajj Gonjobe, describes the devastating impact that the Northern Rangelands Trust’s (NRT)
California’s Forest Carbon Offsets Program
California’s Compliance Offset Program, also known as the forest carbon offset program, is a part of California’s larger Cap-and-Trade Program run by the state’s Air Resources Board (CARB). It is the largest existing project of its kind that issues tradable offset credits to projects that meet the Board’s qualifications for reducing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions; the project is worth more than $2 billion. You can see a map of the offset projects here. But according to CarbonPlan, between 20 million and 39 million credits California’s carbon offsets do not have real climate benefits. CarbonPlan, a San Francisco non-profit that analyzes climate solutions based on available science and data, published an analysis in 2021 which shows that the CARB’s credits “are, in effect, ghost credits that didn’t preserve additional carbon in forests but did allow polluters to emit far more CO2, equal to the annual emissions of 8.5 million cars at the high end.” (ProPublica 2021)
In 2018, California Air Resources Board voted on a proposed policy to pay foreign states and provinces to sequester California’s industrial CO2 emissions in their tropical forests called the Tropical Forest Standard (TFS). A coalition of environmental justice organizations, Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, green groups, academics and international forest-dwelling people urged CARB to reject the policy.
Ninawa Huni Kui, chief of the Huni Kui Tribal Federation of Acre, Brazil; Isaac Asume Osuoka of Cross River State, Nigeria; Marlon Santi, Kichwa People of Sarayaku and national coordinator of Pachacutik Indigenous Party, Ecuador; and Ana Valadez Ortega of the Center for the Study of Change in Rural Mexico issued a joint statement from the four tropical regions:
“We are forest people, scholars and community leaders, and we are united in urging California to reject any consideration of the Tropical Forest Standard. Our state governments, which would be responsible for implementing this standard, do not represent our interests; worse, they are capable of abuse, corruption, and systemic violence. We view any forest carbon plan, by the name REDD+ or any other name, as a continuation of the extractive, colonialist model of development that has devastated our lands, and as a profound threat to our ancestral knowledge and our rights to self-determination. Nature is not for sale.” (FOEI 2018)
Embed Video with caption: Indigenous leaders from Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria Rejecting tropical forest offsets by the California Air Resources Board: https://youtu.be/sOZ7wWQiRLo
The testimonies played a role in blocking the vote in the Tropical Forest Standard until April 2019, which is unfortunately now up and running.
While carbon offsets cannot address climate change, their impact is not always so black and white. There are cases that show us the complexity of how carbon offsets may be used in relation to Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities. For example, there is the case of the Yurok tribe in California that bought back its land by participating in CARB. This was not an uncontroversial decision. The offset credits were obtained by a variety of energy companies like Calpine, PG&E and Shell.
Over the last decade or so, the Yurok tribe has slowly reacquired a total of 100,000 acres from the Green Diamond Resource Company, a major Seattle-based timber business. With income from the offset program, the Yurok tribe has paid off loans from their previous watershed purchases; supported youth programming, housing, and road improvement; and helped develop off-reservation businesses. The tribe has said it is using the acquired land and funds to restore, through Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, its forests, and biodiversity, create a salmon sanctuary, and improve habitat for endangered species like the coho salmon, northern spotted owl, blacktailed deer and Roosevelt elk. (LoCo 2019)